Mike Ashley

[Lotus]

Mashley has zero footballing ambition for NUFC. Which is clearly good enough for some. We should be grateful tbh.

[TRon]

Mashley has zero footballing ambition for NUFC. Which is clearly good enough for some. We should be grateful tbh.

 

I think most would like another owner, but we need an alternative.

[hoppaz]

The glazers used private equity companies to fund their buying of Man U. Those terms are negotiated once already with the second due in 2 to 3 years. They are reducing this debt as well as paying the interest.

 

I doubt Nufc would get 110m from any bank and an equity firm would look for maybe 8 or 9 % interest pa return on any loan as we dont have the revenues of Man U and would be an obvious risk.

 

That debt would cost 8 or 9m per year without any reducion to the debt so over 6 years that is a lot of money to fund debt.

[Unbelievable]

Mashley has zero footballing ambition for NUFC. Which is clearly good enough for some. We should be grateful tbh.

 

I think most would like another owner, but we need an alternative.

 

Well of course, but in the meantime to suggest Ashley's tenure has been anything other than an unmitigated disaster is laughable in my humble opinion.

[Unbelievable]

The glazers used private equity companies to fund their buying of Man U. Those terms are negotiated once already with the second due in 2 to 3 years. They are reducing this debt as well as paying the interest.

 

I doubt Nufc would get 110m from any bank and an equity firm would look for maybe 8 or 9 % interest pa return on any loan as we dont have the revenues of Man U and would be an obvious risk.

 

That debt would cost 8 or 9m per year without any reducion to the debt so over 6 years that is a lot of money to fund debt.

 

If our commercial revenue had grown on a par with other Premiership clubs during those 7 years since Ashley took over we would be 40 million per season better for it. Enough to fund the interest and then some. As it is, the not charging of interest is more than offset by the free SD advertising.

[Wullie]

Mashley has zero footballing ambition for NUFC. Which is clearly good enough for some. We should be grateful tbh.

 

I think most would like another owner, but we need an alternative.

 

Well of course, but in the meantime to suggest Ashley's tenure has been anything other than an unmitigated disaster is laughable in my humble opinion.

 

Literally the only positive from the way he has run the club is that he has the money to fund the massive losses his mismanagement caused. That does not equate to being well run.

 

It's akin to a rich man claiming he'd had a successful night at the casino having lost a million pounds.

 

"How was that successful?"

 

"Because I can afford it"

[hoppaz]

We were relegated so no way would that be the case.

[Hanshithispantz]

Wow people seem upset. Myself I hate Ashley but I balance it with with a range of facts. We are 3 quality players away from being a good side on paper aside from the manager.

 

We need three quality players and a new manager to be a good side on paper? And that's a good thing?

 

Well considering most teams could do with an extra player or two I think we could be worse off. On paper I meant we could be a top 6 or 7 team which is realistic imo.

 

The manager has been tanked many times but also gave us the 4-4 Arsenal comeback, the Chelski drubbing and games where we played Man United off the park.

 

Back on the subject of Mike, the one thing I am grateful to him for was buying us when he did as we could have ended up like Rangers, Leeds or a Coventry otherwise.

 

Pathetic - if most of the fans are like you, they deserve the crap set up they have now.

 

Grateful..!!! Grow a pair.

 

Why not? Would you like to be a fan of Leeds, Rangers or Coventry at the moment?

No, I also wouldn't like to be blind. I'm struggling to see what your point is here?

[biggs]

[hoppaz]

Its a well known fact we were in dire straights before Ashley came along and bought us. Those teams I mentioned were unlucky enough not to have been bought by someone who sorted their debt.

 

I suppose my point is whilst I am not a fan of Mike I guess we would be following a different path now and it would be a lot worse imo.

[Hanshithispantz]

Was it certain that we were fucked to such an extent at the time? I have no idea tbh, but even if Ashley did save us that one time he's done more than his fair share to fuck us over since, including actually relegating us.

 

He clearly has no intention of running us as anything more than a fairly sustainable Premiership club and for that any positives he has ever done for the club are completely negated, we're a chore to support at the moment and we have been for a while; if it wasn't for Ben Arfa I'd probably slice my fucking wrists.

[Wullie]

Rangers were slapped with a vast bill after it was discovered they'd been fiddling their taxes for years, and Coventry didn't own their own ground, and so had to rent it at an extortionate rate.

 

Are these two clubs the new Portsmouth in that they'll be used to defend Ashley under any circumstances despite being nothing like us?

[quayside]

Quayside.

 

I haven't said you are defending Ashley's idiocy. Ozzie quoting your posts to defend it though so it was directed at him.

 

Things got out of shape under the Halls.

 

Things are not going well under Ashley.

 

I'd like to revisit a question i raised. I assume most clubs have their debt held by banks/financial insitutions (clearly not Chelsea and Mancity). If our debt was placed similarly to those other clubs. Would we be in good shape financially? Would we be in profit as we are now? Because, if not then the obvious conclusion is that Ashley is not running the club optimally. Or even close to it. All he would have done would be to shield the club from that kind of exposure but not set any means in place whereby it could operate free of him.

 

Without doing a study on other clubs I cannot really comment on their finances or the level of their debt. You mention Man City and Chelsea as being owner financed. The last time I looked Villa and Fulham were as well. I don't know to what extent John Henry has put his hand in his pocket at Liverpool. I did have a look at Spurs who have been run brilliantly by Levy. They have £85 million of bank loans in place that seem to be secured on White Hart Lane. Financially they always make an operating profit (before player trading and amortisation) and have a strong balance sheet. They do have an overdraft facility but at the last count (2012) they had £16 million in the bank.

 

Your question about how we would get on with bank funding is obviously difficult to answer, because I don't think we would be able to borrow £111 million as we don't have enough assets to secure it. It is also a larger sum than our annual turnover. Thats my opinion and I'd be interested if someone can offer another view. There is an issue with borrowing using St James Park as security because I believe the land on which SJP stands is not owned by the club. So season ticket sales would be the biggest security we could offer, and I can't see anyone lending hugely using that. The club seems to be able to make operating profits now (before player trading and amortisation), you would need to knock off interest payments on any funding we did get. So yes the clubs financial performance has improved. But its not really possible to answer the question because of the fundamental issue of funding. Your point about Ashley shielding us from loan exposure is spot on.

[Lotus]

To me he doesn't appear to restructured the way we're run for us to able to manage without him. Commercial revenue has decreased. There's nothing on the pitch worth a hike in season ticket pricing.

 

Does this make us an attractive option to buy?

[Wullie]

Financial performance has “improved” because we refuse to invest properly in players, which was Shepherd’s main outgoing. Using the word ‘improvement’ in that context is a misnomer imo, because we’re a football club.

 

Might as well say “my personal financial situation has improved dramatically since I stopped paying for electricity, gas and food. Now I sit in the dark with a blanket and some stale bread and I consider myself much better off”

[quayside]

To me he doesn't appear to restructured the way we're run for us to able to manage without him. Commercial revenue has decreased. There's nothing on the pitch worth a hike in season ticket pricing.

 

Does this make us an attractive option to buy?

 

It could be, maybe as a vanity project for some multi billionaire. Right now as others have said the minimum price Ashley would take would appear to be about £250 million, being the purchase price plus the debt. As it stands £250 million isn't stupid money these days, there's plenty of people around who could pay that.  He might get totally hacked off with it and sell at a loss, he seemed to be going down that path when Barry Moat was in the frame. On the other hand he might be looking for daft money that allows him to exit with a decent profit, a buyer would have to really want it to pay more than £250 million imo.

[Guest neesy111]

I'll judge this regime on football matters, nothing else. 

[Guest icemanblue]

I'll judge this regime on football matters, nothing else. 

 

No you won't.

[quayside]

Financial performance has “improved” because we refuse to invest properly in players, which was Shepherd’s main outgoing. Using the word ‘improvement’ in that context is a misnomer imo, because we’re a football club.

 

Might as well say “my personal financial situation has improved dramatically since I stopped paying for electricity, gas and food. Now I sit in the dark with a blanket and some stale bread and I consider myself much better off”

 

Whatever - I was asked about financial performance and replied about financial performance.

[Toonpack]

Financial performance has “improved” because we refuse to invest properly in players, which was Shepherd’s main outgoing. Using the word ‘improvement’ in that context is a misnomer imo, because we’re a football club.

 

Might as well say “my personal financial situation has improved dramatically since I stopped paying for electricity, gas and food. Now I sit in the dark with a blanket and some stale bread and I consider myself much better off”

 

Apart from the dividends and dodgy warehouse deals

[Guest neesy111]

I'll judge this regime on football matters, nothing else. 

 

No you won't.

 

Prove it!

[TRon]

Was it certain that we were fucked to such an extent at the time? I have no idea tbh, but even if Ashley did save us that one time he's done more than his fair share to fuck us over since, including actually relegating us.

 

He clearly has no intention of running us as anything more than a fairly sustainable Premiership club and for that any positives he has ever done for the club are completely negated, we're a chore to support at the moment and we have been for a while; if it wasn't for Ben Arfa I'd probably slice my fucking wrists.

 

Shepherd has defended his record and the financial stability of the club when he left, but then if the finances were in hand, why did Hall and Shepherd sell out? They could have carried on in the same vein and had themselves a successful club run by proud local owners rather than the cockney spivs currently sitting in the hot seats. The biggest problem we have isn't Mike Ashley, it's that no one else wants to buy the club and invest money into making it any better - and you have to include the previous regime in that bracket because the only reason Ashley is here is because they fucked off with £40m each in their personal accounts.

[Unbelievable]

Its a well known fact we were in dire straights before Ashley came along and bought us. Those teams I mentioned were unlucky enough not to have been bought by someone who sorted their debt.

 

I suppose my point is whilst I am not a fan of Mike I guess we would be following a different path now and it would be a lot worse imo.

 

Pure conjecture. We cannot judge what hasn't happened, but we can what has, and we haven't progressed as a football club at all under his tenure.

[Toonpack]

Rangers were slapped with a vast bill after it was discovered they'd been fiddling their taxes for years, and Coventry didn't own their own ground, and so had to rent it at an extortionate rate.

 

Are these two clubs the new Portsmouth in that they'll be used to defend Ashley under any circumstances despite being nothing like us?

 

The source of the debt is irrelevant, the fact was we were built on unsustainable credit, we needed an owner with deep pockets, we got one, could have been better oh aye, BUT the resultant carnage had we not got one would dwarf the current situation in terms of criticality IMO.

 

That's not a defence btw, just a statement of the facts as I see them.

[quayside]

To me he doesn't appear to restructured the way we're run for us to able to manage without him. Commercial revenue has decreased. There's nothing on the pitch worth a hike in season ticket pricing.

 

Does this make us an attractive option to buy?

 

It could be, maybe as a vanity project for some multi billionaire. Right now as others have said the minimum price Ashley would take would appear to be about £250 million, being the purchase price plus the debt. As it stands £250 million isn't stupid money these days, there's plenty of people around who could pay that.  He might get totally hacked off with it and sell at a loss, he seemed to be going down that path when Barry Moat was in the frame. On the other hand he might be looking for daft money that allows him to exit with a decent profit, a buyer would have to really want it to pay more than £250 million imo.

 

Just to add a further point. If a buyer was looking at it and he was concerned about the finances (and not just looking for a vanity project) he might well think he could increase the clubs revenue. The points people have made on here about commercial income and Sports Direct's advertising are good ones imo.